Opposition to Gay Marriage - Any Basis Other Than Intolerance and Bigotry?

[Moonglow]

does the poster not know that their are gay preist and gay church goers?

 

[bodecea]

Statistically speaking a much greater impact on the outcome would have been made by a 45% demographic voting 70% to approve Prop 8.

Since they were only 7% of the voters, who cares? Well unless the race card is trying to be played.



>>>>>

You missed the question.

For some obscure reason, probably because you do not want to admit it, you seem to miss the point that that 45% demographic of weekly church goers had a few blacks and Hispanics within it. My guess is the numbers were actually pretty significant.

Wanna' know why Prop 8 passed in California? Because Blacks and Hispanics voted for it in droves. Ask THEM why they oppose gay marriage.

For some obscure reason, probably because you do not want to admit it, you seem to miss the point of the original post to which I responded which was that Blacks and Hispanics voted "in droves" and were the major reason Prop 8 passed. I used to think that myself after initial exit polls, but longer term research did not bear that out.

The fact is that Blacks and Hispanics were not a major demographic (7% and 14% respectively) with 42% and 41% of them voting in favor of NOT passing Prop 8. The largest Demographic was "white" which voted in the majority against Prop 8 (IIRC about 48%) but the second largest Demographic was weekly religioius service attendance which voted 70% for Prop 8.

It would be more accurate to state that religious people voted "in droves" against Prop 8, but for some reason the poster wanted to focus on race and not a lifestyle choice like religion.

>>>>

Somehow, they think it gives them a guilt excuse.

 

[The Rabbi]

No one is asking for polygamy or bestiality. Those are dried up old arguments the Social Conservatives tried thinking America would be just dumb enough to follow them down that primrose path. Marriage is still two committed, loving, sober taxpaying adult citizens. Not a gaggle of Mormons nor a man and his goat.

There are people that are asking for polygamous marriages, and even bestiality. If we legally change the definition from the traditional one of between one man and one woman what legal justification would we have to tell two men they cannot marry the same woman? Bestiality is an easy one to defend, but polygamy is going to be harder.

Why? If you can't defend it, maybe it's something that shouldn't be defended....that's how our civil rights go.....government cannot restrict it without a compelling reason...if you can't come up with compelling reasons to restrict polygamy (just like the government cannot come up with compelling reasons to restrict gay marriage), maybe it will be legalized.

You're right. We ought to legalize polygamy. This was the entire town of Santa Maria de los Cervezas can marry American citizen Juan Garcia and become US citizens themselves.

Does anyone think this will be a good thing for the US?

 

[bodecea]

You could well be right, Harry! It is widely known that those who express such views vociferously are often homosexuals who are unable to come to terms with their sexual
orientation. It comes from a desperate need to hide their secret. Yep, Cowboy is probably a closet gay. Mind you, the high heeled boots and chaps should have been a giveaway!

The first thing a liberal does in any discussion of homosexuality is accuse his opponent of being a fag. Then he accuses him of being "intolerant" and spouting "hate."

Yeah...it's not as if MANY anti-gay people have been found to be closeted gays....

Yeah...it's not as if MANY anti-gay posters talk about gay sex more than gay people do...

 

[Seawytch]

I just glanced through quickly. Seems GC is determined that it be bigotry.. well,, then he made bigoted statements about religion. Ah yes,, religion.. that's the difference. Marriage is a "religious" ceremony.. "That which GOD has joined." most liberals are atheists and I would think their bigoted selves would want nothing to do with a Christian/Religious ceremony.

The religious ceremony is not what we are fighting for equal access to. We already have equal access to the religious institution of marriage. We can find religious leaders in pretty much every denomination to perform a religious ceremony for us. What gays and lesbians want equal access to is legal, civil marriage. The king that givers your partner health benefits through your job, hospital visitation rights, ability to make decisions about that persons care or final wishes, inherit property or get survivor benefits. There are hundreds and hundreds of rights, benefits and privileges associate with legal marriage.

I don't suppose you could back up your "most liberals are atheists" statement with any kind of factual data could you?

 

[bodecea]

Only intolerant and ignorant people are opposed to Gay marriage? As opposed to: only narcissistic perverts with vested interest SUPPORT Gay marriage? Let’s don’t use simplistic absolutes here. It is a little more complicated than that, don’t ya think? Gays have all the same rights as I , and I feel this cheapens and degrades marriage. (As if it isn’t already being cheapened by Heterosexuals that treat it as if it were petty and disposable). Maybe, on second thought, we might as well go the whole nine yards and let gays marry and ruin it COMPLETELY. Good move, NYC.

My condolences on NY STATE's law ruining marriage for you.

 

[Seawytch]

Marriage is more than a mere contract. I would be fine if there were a "domestic partnership" contract that addressed issues. BUt gays don't want that.

Please provide the instances where civil unions were offered to gay and lesbian couples and they refused them. Let me save you some trouble...you won't be able to find them.

Now, go look for instances where fucking right wing assholes blocked civil unions or domestic partnerships. You WILL be able find those.

 

[bodecea]

I would like to add to my prior post (#116). Some of US find Homosexual intercourse ( I can't call it "love making"), disgusting and repulsive. I do not condone or validate such behavior, and with that in mind, I do not want to sanction Gay marriage. Now, perhaps some of you jolly folks can wave your fairy wand and use enough pejoratives to make opponents of gay marriage just "go away". Enlighten me, HOW do I get past my instinctual feelings of revulsion at what seems such a horrid act? And why should we allow these people to wed? With all this equivocation, some of us will never hold Homosexuality the same as Heterosexuality, NEVER. NEVER. NEVER, EVER. So, what are you going to do, put us into reeducation camps? Lobotomies, Gulags for Heterosexuals?

Another anti-gay who wants to go on about gay sex more than gays do.....

 

[bodecea]

I would like to add to my prior post (#116). Some of US find Homosexual intercourse ( I can't call it "love making"), disgusting and repulsive. I do not condone or validate such behavior, and with that in mind, I do not want to sanction Gay marriage. Now, perhaps some of you jolly folks can wave your fairy wand and use enough pejoratives to make opponents of gay marriage just "go away". Enlighten me, HOW do I get past my instinctual feelings of revulsion at what seems such a horrid act? And why should we allow these people to wed? With all this equivocation, some of us will never hold Homosexuality the same as Heterosexuality, NEVER. NEVER. NEVER, EVER. So, what are you going to do, put us into reeducation camps? Lobotomies, Gulags for Heterosexuals?

You keep your sexual genitals in your bedroom and keep it to urself and the gays will too. Then you mind your own business, that is how it works. Or do you peek into homes of heretosexuals to make sure no sodomy is occurring and they are all just doing the missionary position.
U all r welcome to watch me and my mate, we are exhibitionists. It's not pretty, but,,,,

Yeah, gays arent interested in showing off their attractions.

OMIGOD! They're kissing in PUBLIC! Heteros NEVER do that!!!!!!!

 

[Si modo]

Well, New York has done the right thing. Which brings to mind a question.

Can any person here who is "opposed to gay marriage" come forward and justify their position on the basis of anything other than intolerance and bigotry? Seriously.

Please don't start with "the Bible does not condone same sex marriage." Perhaps it doesn't. So WHAT? Let's say the Bible contained a passage which said: "Marriage is only between a man and a woman. If thou shalt marry one of the same sex as yourself, thou shalt burn in the fiery pits of HELL!" So what? Isn't invoking the Bible just another way of shoving religion down the throats of other people? Yup. In other words, intolerance and bigotry.

No, my friends - we all know what is really involved here, don't we? I am wondering if there is anyone here who has the stones to come right out and tell it like it is: "I am opposed to same sex marriage because I hate gays everything they stand for. No other reason."

Intolerance and bigotry. There really does not seem to be any other reason.

My take is we need fundamental reform: no religious leader should ever act as an agent for the state in contracts. That needs to stop.

For a valid marriage (a contract, really) and the rights that entails, the marriage has to be done by the state.

If one wants a religious flavor to it, then they can get married in their religious house of choice in addition to getting a state marriage. If the religious house refuses because they are same sex, tough shit for the couple. That is the religious group's right.

 

[Colin]

You could well be right, Harry! It is widely known that those who express such views vociferously are often homosexuals who are unable to come to terms with their sexual
orientation. It comes from a desperate need to hide their secret. Yep, Cowboy is probably a closet gay. Mind you, the high heeled boots and chaps should have been a giveaway!

The first thing a liberal does in any discussion of homosexuality is accuse his opponent of being a fag. Then he accuses him of being "intolerant" and spouting "hate."

Liberal? Me! You really are a dumb fucker ain't you!

 

[bodecea]

There are people that are asking for polygamous marriages, and even bestiality. If we legally change the definition from the traditional one of between one man and one woman what legal justification would we have to tell two men they cannot marry the same woman? Bestiality is an easy one to defend, but polygamy is going to be harder.

Why? If you can't defend it, maybe it's something that shouldn't be defended....that's how our civil rights go.....government cannot restrict it without a compelling reason...if you can't come up with compelling reasons to restrict polygamy (just like the government cannot come up with compelling reasons to restrict gay marriage), maybe it will be legalized.

what could be better than gay marraige of two loving people except maybe 5 .. .. ... .. .

If that's your thing, and there is no compelling state reason to restrict it....I'm happy for all of you.

 

[bodecea]

There are people that are asking for polygamous marriages, and even bestiality. If we legally change the definition from the traditional one of between one man and one woman what legal justification would we have to tell two men they cannot marry the same woman? Bestiality is an easy one to defend, but polygamy is going to be harder.

Why? If you can't defend it, maybe it's something that shouldn't be defended....that's how our civil rights go.....government cannot restrict it without a compelling reason...if you can't come up with compelling reasons to restrict polygamy (just like the government cannot come up with compelling reasons to restrict gay marriage), maybe it will be legalized.

You're right. We ought to legalize polygamy. This was the entire town of Santa Maria de los Cervezas can marry American citizen Juan Garcia and become US citizens themselves.

Does anyone think this will be a good thing for the US?

I'll say it again....if that's your thing and the state cannot come up with a compelling reason to restrict it....I'm happy for all of you. Doesn't affect my marriage to my wife in the least.

 

[The Rabbi]

Why? If you can't defend it, maybe it's something that shouldn't be defended....that's how our civil rights go.....government cannot restrict it without a compelling reason...if you can't come up with compelling reasons to restrict polygamy (just like the government cannot come up with compelling reasons to restrict gay marriage), maybe it will be legalized.

You're right. We ought to legalize polygamy. This was the entire town of Santa Maria de los Cervezas can marry American citizen Juan Garcia and become US citizens themselves.

Does anyone think this will be a good thing for the US?

I'll say it again....if that's your thing and the state cannot come up with a compelling reason to restrict it....I'm happy for all of you. Doesn't affect my marriage to my wife in the least.

There is an idea of the collective good of society. Gay marriage does not further that good. In fact it impinges on it.
Gays wuld have to show where their rights are being infringed on. They cannot because they are not.
You want to be "married" to another woman? Go right ahead. But dont expect the state to bless such a thing.

 

[bodecea]

You're right. We ought to legalize polygamy. This was the entire town of Santa Maria de los Cervezas can marry American citizen Juan Garcia and become US citizens themselves.

Does anyone think this will be a good thing for the US?

I'll say it again....if that's your thing and the state cannot come up with a compelling reason to restrict it....I'm happy for all of you. Doesn't affect my marriage to my wife in the least.

There is an idea of the collective good of society. Gay marriage does not further that good. In fact it impinges on it.
Gays wuld have to show where their rights are being infringed on. They cannot because they are not.
You want to be "married" to another woman? Go right ahead. But dont expect the state to bless such a thing.

Sure it does...provides stable relationships just like hetero marriage does.

But you are welcome to show us how gay marriage impinges on the collective good of society. We're listening.

 

[Si modo]

You're right. We ought to legalize polygamy. This was the entire town of Santa Maria de los Cervezas can marry American citizen Juan Garcia and become US citizens themselves.

Does anyone think this will be a good thing for the US?

I'll say it again....if that's your thing and the state cannot come up with a compelling reason to restrict it....I'm happy for all of you. Doesn't affect my marriage to my wife in the least.

There is an idea of the collective good of society. Gay marriage does not further that good. In fact it impinges on it.
Gays wuld have to show where their rights are being infringed on. They cannot because they are not.
You want to be "married" to another woman? Go right ahead. But dont expect the state to bless such a thing.

The state better not be blessing anything.

The state should preside over contracts. The state should not have religious leaders act as agents of the state in that matter. To me, that is the easiest solution.

 

[Seawytch]

You're right. We ought to legalize polygamy. This was the entire town of Santa Maria de los Cervezas can marry American citizen Juan Garcia and become US citizens themselves.

Does anyone think this will be a good thing for the US?

I'll say it again....if that's your thing and the state cannot come up with a compelling reason to restrict it....I'm happy for all of you. Doesn't affect my marriage to my wife in the least.

There is an idea of the collective good of society. Gay marriage does not further that good. In fact it impinges on it.
Gays wuld have to show where their rights are being infringed on. They cannot because they are not.
You want to be "married" to another woman? Go right ahead. But dont expect the state to bless such a thing.

Simply stating "gay marriage does not further that good" does not provide evidence of that. If a heterosexual couple having access to this legal contract provides a societal benefit, then how does providing it to gay and lesbian couples not provide that same benefit?

I have a partner. We have been together in a monogamous relationship for 15 years. We have a home and are raising two children together. What justification do you have to provide legal, civil marriage to a heterosexual couple and not to me and my partner? What is your compelling state reason? (that would actually hold up in court. So far...epic fail)

 

[hortysir]

So - some of your best friends are gay, eh? Terrific. And are you "fine" with same sex marriage? Or (let me guess) - are you opposed to it?

I am fine with gay civil unions or partnerships. The company I now work for provides benefits for gay/lesbian partners.
Gays should be allowed to lose half their shit, too, in the event of a separation/divorce..
BUT...........marriage, by definition, is one man and one woman.
You can't put an eraser on a pen and call it a pencil.

No. To withhold the WORD marriage is simply bigotry. Many gay couples are willing to let this go simply because it is not worth the trouble BUT what POSSIBLE reason could you have for giving all the same rights and calling something different. Face it, let's call a dog a dog and a marriage a marriage. There is no reason to pretend otherwise. To do so is to simply try and fool yourself that the state is sanctioning the act.

I'll let "Steve" and "Ray" know that they're just being bigoted.

 

[Wry Catcher]

You're right. We ought to legalize polygamy. This was the entire town of Santa Maria de los Cervezas can marry American citizen Juan Garcia and become US citizens themselves.

Does anyone think this will be a good thing for the US?

I'll say it again....if that's your thing and the state cannot come up with a compelling reason to restrict it....I'm happy for all of you. Doesn't affect my marriage to my wife in the least.

There is an idea of the collective good of society. Gay marriage does not further that good. In fact it impinges on it.
Gays wuld have to show where their rights are being infringed on. They cannot because they are not.
You want to be "married" to another woman? Go right ahead. But dont expect the state to bless such a thing.

What good does divorce do (and in particular, what good does it do for children when the parents split)? You might make sense Rabbi if you put your biased opinions to rest and actually thought? Have you ever tried?

 

[The Rabbi]

I'll say it again....if that's your thing and the state cannot come up with a compelling reason to restrict it....I'm happy for all of you. Doesn't affect my marriage to my wife in the least.

There is an idea of the collective good of society. Gay marriage does not further that good. In fact it impinges on it.
Gays wuld have to show where their rights are being infringed on. They cannot because they are not.
You want to be "married" to another woman? Go right ahead. But dont expect the state to bless such a thing.

Simply stating "gay marriage does not further that good" does not provide evidence of that. If a heterosexual couple having access to this legal contract provides a societal benefit, then how does providing it to gay and lesbian couples not provide that same benefit?

I have a partner. We have been together in a monogamous relationship for 15 years. We have a home and are raising two children together. What justification do you have to provide legal, civil marriage to a heterosexual couple and not to me and my partner? What is your compelling state reason? (that would actually hold up in court. So far...epic fail)

What benefit does it provide? Keep in mind no one is preventing anyone from moving in with each other or having their union blessed by any church willing to do it or the Rock N Roll Hall of Fame, if that's their thing.

What is the rate of fidelity of homosexual couples over heterosexual couples? What is the incidence of mental illness among homosexuals vs heterosexuals? What is the rate of STDs among homosexuals vs heterosexuals? What is the rate of self destructive behavior among homosexuals vs heterosexuals? How are these obvious differences going to be helped by giving state protections to homosexual unions?